Canon 1D MKIV vs. Canon 7D ? To all the professional photographers in Cyberland,
I own two Canon 7D and I have been considering getting an MK IV, and then sell one of the 7D bodies. Even though the MK IV body costs about $3000 more than the 7D, I was very surprised to read, in a comparison review at DPREVIEW.com, that the sample results for the MK IV are very, very close to the results from the 7D. Can that be possible? Or, am I better off buying great L lenses for the 7D, and not buy the MK IV?? Not sure of the right answer.
I use a pair of the Mark IV bodies at work, and just borrowed a 7D from Canon Professional Services for a test.
The 7D image quality is very good compared to my old Mark II bodies and my 40D bodies. I just shot a candle-lit church service at ISO 3200, and the images are very usable. The AF is good, and camera feels solid and responsive. Overall, compared to my old Mark II bodies, the 7D is an improvement in almost every area.
However, the 1D Mark IV is just a whole different level in pretty much every area. Image quality at 3200 and 6400 is superb. Excellent detail, very low noise, and it's easily controlled in raw processing. AF is faster and there are more custom options (and I can make it work like my Mark II bodies, with the AF-On button for Spot AF, and the * button for Area AF.)
That said, I don't like to work with two different cameras at the same time. The user interface is slightly different between the 7D and the 1D Mark IV, and it's just enough that for me I'd have a hard time switching from one to the other i the middle of an assignment.
K. Bennett, Thanks very much for your info about these two cameras. I started with the model 30, had them for a year, sold them and got two 40D's, then last March I sold those and bought two 7D's. I had thought about getting a 5D, but a friend who just bought it said there are a lot of problems with the focusing, he said he gets around 20% out of focus, a number I find unacceptable. He advised me to skip the 5D and go to the Mark IV, and I was not sure if the better and sharper images, especially at high ISOs would be worth the extra $3000 a Mark IV would cost. What I might do is rent a Mark IV body for a weekend and see how I like it. Thanks for taking the time to post your comments.
I am a proud owner of a 7D and I have spent many hours taking pictures with it. I made the plung and bought a nice "EF 24-105mm f4.0 IS L" lense and it is awesome... just wonderful. The new lense really improved the quality of the pictures that I have taken... My advise... keep the 7D's and get some quality glass..
Hardy, Thanks for the info about getting better lenses. I just "bit the bullet" and bought the 24-105mm L lens. I have heard this same wise advice from other photographers, and I am looking forward to getting sharper photos with the new lens, and I will try to get only L lenses from now on. In the end, you truly get what you pay for.
I just sold my 7D which I had bought for a back up to my MK III. I can't compare the 7D to a MK IV but the MKIII was superior in ISO and also 10FPS, + faster focus. I loved the 7D for macro and low ISO requirements. The colors are a tad different than the MKIII. Overall, they make a nice combo. I sold the 7D because I found I was grabbing the MKIII much more often. [I assume a MKIV difference would be even better.] And I am hoping the MK IV has better iso clarity than the 7D. I need to rent one too, because once you use a 1D series camera, it's hard to find the quality elsewhere. I hope to get a IV, and will if it has better ISO and focusing lock than the MKIII. [which is what they say] I might add, I'm not so sure the larger mp files look as clean as the 10mp cameras, so maybe my eye is too critical of the larger photos. Regardless, the 7D photos were just harder to clean up than the MKIII. I don't know if thats the same with the MKIV. If it is, I doubt I will buy it if the ISO looks like the 7D.
Well, after considering all my fellow photographers' advice, on whether or not to switch to MK IV from 7D, I "took the plunge" and purchased three L lenses: 16-35mm f/2.8, 24-105mm f/4.0, and 70-200mm f/4.0. It is still too early to tell, but from my initial impressions shooting during the snow storm in NYC, I am very happy with all the L lenses, even though I had to sell most of my old lenses to get them. Just looking at the LCD screen after each shot, I can readily see the difference in sharpness and color. I am waiting to get a 20"x24" print and see if all the sages' advice I found here paid off. Thanks to all of you who shared your experiences with me.
I now have the MarkIV and love it. There's nothing to compare to it to anywhere. I was goofing off with it today at ISO 10,000. Yes, the only drawback is not using the 10-22 wide angle and a few efs lenses.
Wouldn't mind having the FF 5DMKII also! I was just looking at some ISO comparisons. Almost as good as the MKIV. DPreview has some comparisons. If you want full frame go with the 5D, if you want fast FPS and more length to your lenses go with the MKIV. They are both excellent. The MKIV is a heavier camera.